1. Animadverting upon the order dated 17.2.2010 passed by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, in I.A.Nos.6 and 11 of 2010 in A.S.No.55 of 1989, these civil revision petitions are focussed.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The epitome and the long and short of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two civil revision petitions would run thus:

One Nanja Reddy filed the suit O.S.No.390 of 77 seeking partition. After contest, the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, several appeals have been filed by various groups among the parties and those appeals were pending.

(ii) While so, the revision petitioners herein, who happened to be D51 to D60, filed the I.A.No.6 of 2010 before the appellate Court with the following prayer:

"to direct the respondents to get the leave of the Court by an application, before ever their counsel argues the new ground not set forth in the memorandum of appeal in A.S.No.159 of 1988, that D1 schedule properties in the suit in O.S.No.390 of 77 are joint family properties.

(extracted as such)

(iii) Whereas, the respondents 1 to 10 herein, who happened to be original D2 to D4, D28 to D32, filed the I.A.No.11 of 2010 with the following prayer:

"to grant leave to petitioners/appellants to urge that DI schedule properties are joint family properties."

(iv) Both the applications were contested and whereupon common order was passed by the lower Court dismissing the I.A.No.6 of 2010 filed by the revision petitioners herein and allowing the I.A.No.11 of 2010 filed by the aforesaid respondents .

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order, these two civil revision petitions are filed almost on identical grounds.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners, so to say, D51 to D60, reiterating the grounds of revisions would develop his arguments, the warp and woof of them would run thus:

(i) The appellate Court had no jurisdiction at all to permit D2 to D4 and D28 to D32 as appellants in appeal A.S.No.55 of 1989 to raise additional grounds touching upon the decision rendered by the trial Court relating to the Schedule DI property.

(ii) The Schedule DI property is pertaining to the one exclusively purchased by the deceased V.Venkata Reddy/D49 and his legal heirs are the revision petitioners herein.

(iii) D2 to D4 and D28 to D32 in A.S.No.55 of 1989 under ground No.67 stated thus:

"67.This appeal is filed in respect of all the suit properties except item 6 of B I schedule items 10 and 11 of C V Schedule; item 17 and 55 of D schedule D I Schedule and items 2 and 3 of E Schedule."

After setting out such a ground in the memorandum of appeal by D2 to D4 and D28 to D32 and giving up their claim over Schedule DI, they simply had a volte face and quite antithetical to what they committed themselves in black and white in appeal memorandum, they have chosen to pray in I.A.No.11 of 2010 as though they are also having grievance relating to the adjudication made by the trial Court.

(iv) It is too late in the day on the part of D2 to D4 and D28 to D32 to contend that the Schedule D1 property also happened to be the joint family property.They cannot approbate and reprobate, blow hot and cold.

(v) The appeal itself was filed in the year 1989. The very I.A.No.11 of 2010 was filed in the year 2010, so to say, after more than two decades of filing of the appeal. In the meanwhile, much water has flown under the bridge and the legal heirs of V.Venkata Reddy-D49, namely, the revision petitioners herein, took it for granted that their exclusive right over Schedule DI property was beyond question; holus-bolus I.A.No.11 of 2010 was came to be filed by D2 to D4, D28 to D32 to the shock and surprise of the legal heirs of Venkata Reddy-D49-the revision petitioners herein and in fact, the petitioners in I.A.No.11 of 2010 were estopped from raising such a plea contrary to what they have stated in ground No.67 of their memorandum of appeal.

(vi) The learned co